By Eric Deitz
A recent ABA ethics opinion addresses the demands that arise when preparing a client to testify and during their testimony. The ABA issued Formal Opinion 508 on August 5, 2023.
By Shelly Skinner
Nowadays, it’s hard for a lawyer to ignore the ubiquity of social media and its potential to impact clients’ cases. Some jurisdictions have even said that a lawyer’s duty of competence includes competence with social media.[1]
By David C. Carr
Once upon a time in the 19th Century, a man named David Dudley Field had some time on his hands. As a lawyer, this man was naturally inclined to write a code, a popular activity at the time. Large parts of this Code, the Field Code, became the law in a few states, including California, which had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Field’s brother, Stephen Field, was the fifth justice of the California Supreme Court.
By Deborah Wolfe
One of the many facets of serving on the SDCBA’s Legal Ethics Committee (“LEC”) (in addition to penning articles for “Ethics in Brief “and “For the Record”) includes providing MCLE seminars for other lawyers focusing on legal ethics requirements. I frequently observe on such occasions the panicked looks on attendees’ faces when something I’ve said makes them fearful about possibly having missed a conflict of interest situation, or providing a client with appropriate disclosures within ethical boundaries. The purpose of the seminars is not to scare practitioners into compliance, but merely to remind them of the high standards lawyers are expected to meet. Lawyers’ ethics require us to put our clients’ interests ahead of our own; no other profession requires such an extreme level of duty to one’s clients. To the point, Business & Professions Code section 6068(e) requires lawyers to maintain the confidences of our clients at “every peril” to ourselves. I have always interpreted this section to mean that even faced with a loaded gun, I should take a bullet rather than betray any client confidence or secret. Despite its antiquated language, subsequent case law and State Bar decisions have held this section to convey that in addition to confidences and secrets, it requires lawyers to maintain the highest level of fiduciary duty and undivided loyalty to their clients.
By Edward J. McIntyre
One would have to have been living on another planet not to recognize that generative AI is upon us —and all the rage. Whether ChatGPT, Bing A.I., Bard or some other platform, it’s hard to miss the proliferation of information — and misinformation — about large-learning-model platforms. They’ll either miraculously transform the way we work, recreate, communicate — or will destroy it. Rest assured, there’s only more to come.
By Brandon Kimura
Artificial Intelligence has long been imagined by both science and popular culture. With the release of ChatGPT to the public, AI is now reality and its potential application in every industry is evolving daily. The law is no exception. From applying AI to discovery, to allowing AI to argue in court, AI is here, as are the ethical issues that arise from its use. Thankfully, while the problems AI poses may be novel, at least some of the ethical answers appear to be comfortably traditional.
By Timothy Casey
Modern artificial intelligence tools offer the promise of quick and efficient solutions to complex questions. General applications such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Bing A.I., Google’s Bard and law specific applications such as CaseText’s CoCounsel are based on advanced, deep-learning, language-based artificial intelligence. These applications use generative artificial intelligence that analyzes massive data sets to provide natural language responses to questions submitted by human users. While these tools may offer advantages over existing computer assisted research tools such as Lexis and Westlaw, there are unseen dangers as well.
By Irean Z. Swan
A couple of weeks ago, on June 22, 2023, the Supreme Court of California unanimously approved the new Rules of Professional Conduct rule 8.3, or better known as the “snitch rule.” Before June 22, 2023, California was the only state that did not adopt the “snitch rule” in the ABA Model Rule 8.3, or a version of this rule. The Court’s decision was based on one of two alternatives (they picked Alternative Two), which my colleague on the Legal Ethics Committee, Mallory H. Chase, discussed in this article.
By David C. Carr
The Simpsons lawyer Lionel Hutz wisely observed that “the law books not only make the office look good, they are chock full of useful legal tidbits.”[1]
By Mitchell L. Lathrop
Howard Horror (“Howard”)1 was busily representing four very important clients in a lawsuit, Evers et al. v. Jones Company. The Evers case arose because Jones Company had the audacity to fire Howard’s clients for excessive talking while on the job and the unauthorized accessing of sensitive communications between the Jones Company CEO and its lead outside counsel, Josephine Smith. Howard’s clients had learned that Jones Company was in financial difficulty, but Howard was not worried because Jones Company had employment practices liability (EPL) insurance. Even his clients’ signing of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with Jones Company wasn’t cause for concern. After all, the information they gave Howard was extremely valuable for use in the Evers case.
